Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
9190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 3544

IP Header Compression over PPP

Pages: 14
Proposed Standard
Obsoletes:  2509

ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 1
Network Working Group                                           T. Koren
Request for Comments: 3544                                 Cisco Systems
Obsoletes: 2509                                                S. Casner
Category: Standards Track                                  Packet Design
                                                              C. Bormann
                                                 Universitaet Bremen TZI
                                                               July 2003


                     IP Header Compression over PPP

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document describes an option for negotiating the use of header compression on IP datagrams transmitted over the Point-to-Point Protocol (RFC 1661). It defines extensions to the PPP Control Protocols for IPv4 and IPv6 (RFC 1332, RFC 2472). Header compression may be applied to IPv4 and IPv6 datagrams in combination with TCP, UDP and RTP transport protocols as specified in RFC 2507, RFC 2508 and RFC 3545.

1. Introduction

The IP Header Compression (IPHC) defined in [RFC2507] may be used for compression of both IPv4 and IPv6 datagrams or packets encapsulated with multiple IP headers. IPHC is also capable of compressing both TCP and UDP transport protocol headers. The IP/UDP/RTP header compression defined in [RFC2508] and [RFC3545] fits within the framework defined by IPHC so that it may also be applied to both IPv4 and IPv6 packets.
ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 2
   In order to establish compression of IP datagrams sent over a PPP
   link each end of the link must agree on a set of configuration
   parameters for the compression.  The process of negotiating link
   parameters for network layer protocols is handled in PPP by a family
   of network control protocols (NCPs).  Since there are separate NCPs
   for IPv4 and IPv6, this document defines configuration options to be
   used in both NCPs to negotiate parameters for the compression scheme.

   This document obsoletes RFC 2509, adding two new suboptions to the IP
   header compression configuration option.  One suboption negotiates
   usage of Enhanced RTP-Compression (specified in [RFC3545]), and the
   other suboption negotiates header compression for only TCP or only
   non-TCP packets.

   IPHC relies on the link layer's ability to indicate the types of
   datagrams carried in the link layer frames.  In this document nine
   new types for the PPP Data Link Layer Protocol Field are defined
   along with their meaning.

   In general, header compression schemes that use delta encoding of
   compressed packets require that the lower layer does not reorder
   packets between compressor and decompressor.  IPHC uses delta
   encoding of compressed packets for TCP and RTP.  The IPHC
   specification [RFC2507] includes methods that allow link layers that
   may reorder packets to be used with IPHC.  Since PPP does not reorder
   packets these mechanisms are disabled by default.  When using
   reordering mechanisms such as multiclass multilink PPP [RFC2686],
   care must be taken so that packets that share the same compression
   context are not reordered.

2. Configuration Option

This document specifies a new compression protocol value for the IPCP IP-Compression-Protocol option as specified in [RFC1332]. The new value and the associated option format are described in section 2.1. The option format is structured to allow future extensions to the IPHC scheme. NOTE: The specification of link and network layer parameter negotiation for PPP [RFC1661], [RFC1331], [RFC1332] does not prohibit multiple instances of one configuration option but states that the specification of a configuration option must explicitly allow multiple instances. [RFC3241] updates RFC 1332 by explicitly allowing the sending of multiple instances of the IP- Compression-Protocol configuration option, each with a different value for IP-Compression-Protocol. Each type of compression protocol may independently establish its own parameters.
ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 3
   NOTE: [RFC1332] is not explicit about whether the option
      negotiates the capabilities of the receiver or of the sender.  In
      keeping with current practice, we assume that the option describes
      the capabilities of the decompressor (receiving side) of the peer
      that sends the Config-Req.

2.1. Configuration Option Format

Both the network control protocol for IPv4, IPCP [RFC1332] and the IPv6 NCP, IPV6CP [RFC2472] may be used to negotiate IP Header Compression parameters for their respective protocols. The format of the configuration option is the same for both IPCP and IPV6CP. Description This NCP configuration option is used to negotiate parameters for IP Header Compression. Successful negotiation of parameters enables the use of Protocol Identifiers FULL_HEADER, COMPRESSED_TCP, COMPRESSED_TCP_NODELTA, COMPRESSED_NON_TCP and CONTEXT_STATE as specified in [RFC2507]. The option format is summarized below. The fields are transmitted from left to right. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | IP-Compression-Protocol | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TCP_SPACE | NON_TCP_SPACE | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | F_MAX_PERIOD | F_MAX_TIME | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAX_HEADER | suboptions... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type 2 Length >= 14 The length may be increased if the presence of additional parameters is indicated by additional suboptions. IP-Compression-Protocol 0061 (hex)
ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 4
   TCP_SPACE
      The TCP_SPACE field is two octets and indicates the maximum value
      of a context identifier in the space of context identifiers
      allocated for TCP.

         Suggested value: 15

      TCP_SPACE must be at least 0 and at most 255 (the value 0 implies
      having one context).

   NON_TCP_SPACE
      The NON_TCP_SPACE field is two octets and indicates the maximum
      value of a context identifier in the space of context identifiers
      allocated for non-TCP.  These context identifiers are carried in
      COMPRESSED_NON_TCP, COMPRESSED_UDP and COMPRESSED_RTP packet
      headers.

         Suggested value: 15

      NON_TCP_SPACE must be at least 0 and at most 65535 (the value 0
      implies having one context).

   F_MAX_PERIOD
      Maximum interval between full headers.  No more than F_MAX_PERIOD
      COMPRESSED_NON_TCP headers may be sent between FULL_HEADER
      headers.

         Suggested value: 256

      A value of zero implies infinity, i.e. there is no limit to the
      number of consecutive COMPRESSED_NON_TCP headers.

   F_MAX_TIME
      Maximum time interval between full headers.  COMPRESSED_NON_TCP
      headers may not be sent more than F_MAX_TIME seconds after sending
      the last FULL_HEADER header.

         Suggested value: 5 seconds

      A value of zero implies infinity.

   MAX_HEADER
      The largest header size in octets that may be compressed.

         Suggested value: 168 octets
ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 5
      The value of MAX_HEADER should be large enough so that at least
      the outer network layer header can be compressed.  To increase
      compression efficiency MAX_HEADER should be set to a value large
      enough to cover common combinations of network and transport layer
      headers.

   suboptions
      The suboptions field consists of zero or more suboptions.  Each
      suboption consists of a type field, a length field and zero or
      more parameter octets, as defined by the suboption type.  The
      value of the length field indicates the length of the suboption in
      its entirety, including the lengths of the type and length fields.

       0                   1                   2
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |    Length     |  Parameters...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.2. RTP-Compression Suboption

The RTP-Compression suboption is included in the NCP IP-Compression- Protocol option for IPHC if IP/UDP/RTP compression is to be enabled. Inclusion of the RTP-Compression suboption enables use of additional Protocol Identifiers COMPRESSED_RTP and COMPRESSED_UDP along with additional forms of CONTEXT_STATE as specified in [RFC2508]. Description Enable use of Protocol Identifiers COMPRESSED_RTP, COMPRESSED_UDP and CONTEXT_STATE as specified in [RFC2508]. 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type 1 Length 2
ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 6

2.3. Enhanced RTP-Compression Suboption

To use the enhanced RTP header compression defined in [RFC3545], a new sub-option 2 is added. Sub-option 2 is negotiated instead of, not in addition to, sub-option 1. Description Enable use of Protocol Identifiers COMPRESSED_RTP and CONTEXT_STATE as specified in [RFC2508]. In addition, enable use of [RFC3545] compliant compression including the use of Protocol Identifier COMPRESSED_UDP with additional flags and use of the C flag with the FULL_HEADER Protocol Identifier to indicate use of HDRCKSUM with COMPRESSED_RTP and COMPRESSED_UDP packets. 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type 2 Length 2

2.4. Negotiating header compression for only TCP or only non-TCP packets

In RFC 2509 it was not possible to negotiate only TCP header compression or only non-TCP header compression because a value of 0 in the TCP_SPACE or the NON_TCP_SPACE fields actually means that 1 context is negotiated. A new suboption 3 is added to allow specifying that the number of contexts for TCP_SPACE or NON_TCP_SPACE is zero, disabling use of the corresponding compression.
ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 7
   Description

   Enable header compression for only TCP or only non-TCP packets.

       0                   1                   2
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |    Length     |   Parameter   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type
         3

      Length
         3

      Parameter

      The parameter is 1 byte with one of the following values:

      1 = the number of contexts for TCP_SPACE is 0
      2 = the number of contexts for NON_TCP_SPACE is 0

   This suboption overrides the values that were previously assigned to
   TCP_SPACE and NON_TCP_SPACE in the IP Header Compression option.

   If suboption 3 is included multiple times with parameter 1 and 2,
   compression is disabled for all packets.

3. Multiple Network Control Protocols

The IPHC protocol is able to compress both IPv6 and IPv4 datagrams. Both IPCP and IPV6CP are able to negotiate option parameter values for IPHC. These values apply to the compression of packets where the outer header is an IPv4 header and an IPv6 header, respectively.

3.1. Sharing Context Identifier Space

For the compression and decompression of IPv4 and IPv6 datagram headers the context identifier space is shared. While the parameter values are independently negotiated, sharing the context identifier spaces becomes more complex when the parameter values differ. Since the compressed packets share context identifier space, the compression engine must allocate context identifiers out of a common pool; for compressed packets, the decompressor has to examine the context state to determine what parameters to use for decompression.
ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 8
   Context identifier spaces are not shared between TCP and non-
   TCP/UDP/RTP.  Doing so would require additional mechanisms to ensure
   that no error can occur when switching from using a context
   identifier for TCP to non-TCP.

4. Demultiplexing of Datagrams

The IPHC specification [RFC2507] defines four header formats for different types of compressed headers. They are compressed TCP, compressed TCP with no delta encoding, compressed non-TCP with 8 bit CID and compressed non-TCP with 16 bit CID. The two non-TCP formats may be distinguished by their contents so both may use the same link-level identifier. A fifth header format, the full header is distinct from a regular header in that it carries additional information to establish shared context between the compressor and decompressor. The specification of IP/UDP/RTP Header Compression [RFC2508] defines four additional formats of compressed headers. They are for compressed UDP and compressed RTP (on top of UDP), both with either 8- or 16-bit CIDs. In addition, there is an explicit error message from the decompressor to the compressor. The link layer must be able to indicate these header formats with distinct values. Nine PPP Data Link Layer Protocol Field values are specified below. FULL_HEADER The frame contains a full header as specified in [RFC2508] Section 3.3.1. This is the same as the FULL_HEADER specified in [RFC2507] Section 5.3. Value: 0061 (hex) COMPRESSED_TCP The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the format as specified in [RFC2507] Section 6a. Value: 0063 (hex) COMPRESSED_TCP_NODELTA The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the format as specified in [RFC2507] Section 6b. Value: 2063 (hex) COMPRESSED_NON_TCP The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the format as specified in either Section 6c or Section 6d of [RFC2507]. Value: 0065 (hex)
ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 9
   COMPRESSED_RTP_8
      The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the
      format as specified in [RFC2508] Section 3.3.2, using 8-bit CIDs.
         Value: 0069 (hex)

   COMPRESSED_RTP_16
      The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the
      format as specified in [RFC2508] Section 3.3.2, using 16-bit CIDs.
         Value: 2069 (hex)

   COMPRESSED_UDP_8
      The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the
      format as specified in [RFC2508] Section 3.3.3 or as specified in
      [RFC3545] Section 2.1, using 8-bit CIDs.
         Value: 0067 (hex)

   COMPRESSED_UDP_16
      The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the
      format as specified in [RFC2508] Section 3.3.3 or as specified in
      [RFC3545] Section 2.1, using 16-bit CIDs.
         Value: 2067 (hex)

   CONTEXT_STATE
      The frame is a link-level message sent from the decompressor to
      the compressor as specified in [RFC2508] Section 3.3.5.
         Value: 2065 (hex)

5. Changes from RFC 2509

Two new suboptions are specified. See Sections 2.3 and 2.4.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[RFC1144] Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP Headers for low-speed serial links", RFC 1144, February 1990. [RFC1332] McGregor, G., "The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)", RFC 1332, May 1992. [RFC2472] Haskin, D. and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 2472, December 1998. [RFC2507] Degermark, M., Nordgren, B. and S. Pink, "Header Compression for IP", RFC 2507, February 1999.
ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 10
   [RFC2508]  Casner, S. and V. Jacobson, "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP
              Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links", RFC 2508, February
              1999.

   [RFC3241]  Bormann, C., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP",
              RFC 3241, April 2002.

   [RFC3545]  Koren, T., Casner, S., Geevarghese, J., Thompson, B. and
              P. Ruddy, "Enhanced Compressed RTP (CRTP) for Links with
              High Delay, Packet Loss and Reordering", RFC 3545, July
              2003.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC1661] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-To-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994. [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [RFC2686] Bormann, C., "The Multi-Class Extension to Multi-Link PPP", RFC 2686, September 1999. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC 3550, July 2003.

7. IANA Considerations

This document does not require any additional allocations from existing namespaces in the IANA Point-to-Point Protocol Field Assignments registry. However, there are three namespaces that were defined by RFC 1332, RFC 2472, and RFC 2509 but not created in the registry. Those three namespaces, described below, have been added to the PPP registry. This document specifies two additional allocations in the third one. Section 3.2 of RFC 1332 specifies an IP-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option for the PPP IP Control Protocol and defines one value for the IP-Compression-Protocol type field in that option. An IANA registry has been created to allocate additional values for that type field. As stated in RFC 1332, the values for the IP- Compression-Protocol type field are always the same as the (primary) PPP DLL Protocol Number assigned to packets of the particular compression protocol. Assignment of additional IP-Compression- Protocol type values is through the IETF consensus procedure as specified in [RFC2434].
ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 11
   Section 4.2 of RFC 2472 specifies an IPv6-Compression-Protocol
   Configuration Option for the PPP IPv6 Control Protocol and defines
   one value for the IPv6-Compression-Protocol type field in that
   option.  An IANA registry has been created to allocate additional
   values for that type field.  The IPv6-Compression-Protocol
   Configuration Option has the same structure as the IP-Compression-
   Protocol Configuration Option defined in RFC 1332, but the set of
   values defined for the type field may be different.  As stated in RFC
   2472, the values for the IPv6-Compression-Protocol type field are
   always the same as the (primary) PPP DLL Protocol Number assigned to
   packets of the particular compression protocol.  Assignment of
   additional IPv6-Compression-Protocol type values is through the IETF
   consensus procedure as specified in [RFC2434].

   Section 2.1 of RFC 2509 specifies an additional type value to be
   registered for both the IP-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option
   and the IPv6-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option to indicate
   use of the "IP Header Compression" protocol.  The specification of
   that type value is repeated in Section 2.1 of this document which
   obsoletes RFC 2509.  In conjunction with the additional type value,
   the format for the variable-length option is specified.  The format
   includes a suboption field that may contain one or more suboptions.
   Each suboption begins with a suboption type value.  An IANA registry
   has been created for the suboption type values; and is titled, "IP
   Header Compression Configuration Option Suboption Types".

   Section 2.2 of RFC 2509 (and this document) defines one suboption
   type.  Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of this document define two additional
   suboption types.  It is expected that the number of additional
   suboptions that will need to be defined is small.  Therefore, anyone
   wishing to define new suboptions is required to produce a revision of
   this document to be vetted through the normal Internet Standards
   process, as specified in [RFC2434].

   RFC 2509 also defines nine PPP Data Link Layer Protocol Field values
   which are already listed in the IANA registry of Point-to-Point
   Protocol Field Assignments.  Section 4 of this document repeats the
   specification of those values without change.

8. Security Considerations

Negotiation of the option defined here imposes no additional security considerations beyond those that otherwise apply to PPP [RFC1661]. The use of header compression can, in rare cases, cause the misdelivery of packets. If necessary, confidentiality of packet contents should be assured by encryption.
ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 12
   Encryption applied at the IP layer (e.g., using IPSEC mechanisms)
   precludes header compression of the encrypted headers, though
   compression of the outer IP header and authentication/security
   headers is still possible as described in [RFC2507].  For RTP
   packets, full header compression is possible if the RTP payload is
   encrypted by itself without encrypting the UDP or RTP headers, as
   described in [RFC3550].  This method is appropriate when the UDP and
   RTP header information need not be kept confidential.

9. Intellectual Property Rights Notice

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director.
ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 13

10. Acknowledgements

Mathias Engan was the primary author of RFC 2509, of which this document is a revision.

11. Authors' Addresses

Tmima Koren Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134-1706 United States EMail: tmima@cisco.com Stephen L. Casner Packet Design 3400 Hillview Avenue, Building 3 Palo Alto, CA 94304 United States EMail: casner@packetdesign.com Carsten Bormann Universitaet Bremen FB3 TZI Postfach 330440 D-28334 Bremen, GERMANY Phone: +49.421.218-7024 Fax: +49.421.218-7000 EMail: cabo@tzi.org
ToP   noToC   RFC3544 - Page 14

12. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.